3 ms·

"Listen to science!" is ironically a profoundly unscientific statement.

by raxxorrax 5y ago

danans 5y ago
Nobody claims it to be a scientific statement. It's just a best practice in many circumstances.
- azinman2 5y ago
  What’s a better practice is to explain the rationale per situation, what is known and what is not known. The right turned science into a culture war flashpoint, which meant the left blindly preaches “believe in science” as if it’s about faith. This is all very disingenuous and not at all what science is actually about. It’s very unfortunate that Covid started under trump because being anti-science was part of his marketing message to his base, many because of the risk to certain jobs with caring about climate change (aka the great “hoax”) and the association of science/medicine and abortion. Unfortunately explaining the rationale in a way that people can comprehend and not tune out is very very difficult, and far more time consuming than whatever 2 syllables Trump could come up with as a retort.
  - danans 5y ago
    > The right turned science into a culture war flashpoint, which meant the left blindly preaches “believe in science” as if it’s about faith. These two perspectives are not equivalent opposites though. "Believe in science" is not a religious statement. It is a shorthand for "trust in the scientific institutions that have proven their track record via decades of public health progress, and not in anti-scientific rhetoric with a culture war agenda". That concept wasn't even controversial on most of the political right until their recent nationalist turn.
    - azinman2 5y ago
      Knowledge and understanding of the world is constantly growing. There are endless examples of how scientists and other intellectuals have a current paradigm of how something must work, only to be disproven in the future (usually by someone who gets castigated until held up years later). So to say 'believe in science' is actually dogma. It makes me cringe when I see it as a political banner, or along side signs like 'in this house we believe in....' It would be more accurate to say 'the scientific method works', but it really only works in the long run. At any point in time our understanding is incomplete and erroneous. The facts are out there, whether you believe it or not, and eventually the scientific method will catch up. Of course if you're not a trained scientist, then it's hard to appreciate how the scientific method works, and that even when we're very sure of something, true scientists will always hedge their statements. This will be misinterpreted by those who are outside this world as there being more gray than actually exists, and those with an agenda will drive a truck right through it.

"Listen to science!" is ironically a profoundly unscientific statement.

danans 5y ago

Nobody claims it to be a scientific statement. It's just a best practice in many circumstances.

azinman2 5y ago
What’s a better practice is to explain the rationale per situation, what is known and what is not known. The right turned science into a culture war flashpoint, which meant the left blindly preaches “believe in science” as if it’s about faith. This is all very disingenuous and not at all what science is actually about. It’s very unfortunate that Covid started under trump because being anti-science was part of his marketing message to his base, many because of the risk to certain jobs with caring about climate change (aka the great “hoax”) and the association of science/medicine and abortion. Unfortunately explaining the rationale in a way that people can comprehend and not tune out is very very difficult, and far more time consuming than whatever 2 syllables Trump could come up with as a retort.
- danans 5y ago
  > The right turned science into a culture war flashpoint, which meant the left blindly preaches “believe in science” as if it’s about faith. These two perspectives are not equivalent opposites though. "Believe in science" is not a religious statement. It is a shorthand for "trust in the scientific institutions that have proven their track record via decades of public health progress, and not in anti-scientific rhetoric with a culture war agenda". That concept wasn't even controversial on most of the political right until their recent nationalist turn.
  - azinman2 5y ago
    Knowledge and understanding of the world is constantly growing. There are endless examples of how scientists and other intellectuals have a current paradigm of how something must work, only to be disproven in the future (usually by someone who gets castigated until held up years later). So to say 'believe in science' is actually dogma. It makes me cringe when I see it as a political banner, or along side signs like 'in this house we believe in....' It would be more accurate to say 'the scientific method works', but it really only works in the long run. At any point in time our understanding is incomplete and erroneous. The facts are out there, whether you believe it or not, and eventually the scientific method will catch up. Of course if you're not a trained scientist, then it's hard to appreciate how the scientific method works, and that even when we're very sure of something, true scientists will always hedge their statements. This will be misinterpreted by those who are outside this world as there being more gray than actually exists, and those with an agenda will drive a truck right through it.