4 ms·

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

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. :(
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    Here are the facts about that which I know: - Someone who has been vaccinated is several times less likely to catch it than someone who has not. - Someone who has had it and gotten better is several times less likely to catch it again than someone who has been vaccinated but has not caught it yet. (This is one definition of "natural immunity.") - For some reason, many registries won't count a positive test followed by a negative test as evidence for immunity. The first two are clearly laid out in the Israeli study and are what I'd call "the scientific consensus," gathered by reading what actual scientists are saying. I'm lost at the jump from the first two points to the third because I can't see why it's done that way. The media is not completely silent on natural immunity, I think I saw one article about the Israeli study somewhere.
    - throwaway894345 5y ago
      The media is never completely silent about anything, but for many, many, many months it was very difficult to get any information at all about natural immunity from the media. I recall Googling around about it because everyone was talking about vaccination numbers and progress, but for the better part of a year, no one was talking about how many people had natural immunity much less how effective it is. Even if you're inclined to argue, "but what if no one knew the answers to those questions?"--first of all, it's unlikely that epidemiologists and virologists had no estimates at all, and even if they did, that itself would be newsworthy. Moreover, it's the media's job to dig up these answers.

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. :(
- whatshisface 5y ago
  Here are the facts about that which I know: - Someone who has been vaccinated is several times less likely to catch it than someone who has not. - Someone who has had it and gotten better is several times less likely to catch it again than someone who has been vaccinated but has not caught it yet. (This is one definition of "natural immunity.") - For some reason, many registries won't count a positive test followed by a negative test as evidence for immunity. The first two are clearly laid out in the Israeli study and are what I'd call "the scientific consensus," gathered by reading what actual scientists are saying. I'm lost at the jump from the first two points to the third because I can't see why it's done that way. The media is not completely silent on natural immunity, I think I saw one article about the Israeli study somewhere.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    The media is never completely silent about anything, but for many, many, many months it was very difficult to get any information at all about natural immunity from the media. I recall Googling around about it because everyone was talking about vaccination numbers and progress, but for the better part of a year, no one was talking about how many people had natural immunity much less how effective it is. Even if you're inclined to argue, "but what if no one knew the answers to those questions?"--first of all, it's unlikely that epidemiologists and virologists had no estimates at all, and even if they did, that itself would be newsworthy. Moreover, it's the media's job to dig up these answers.