4 ms·

> Mainstream medicine has reacted with slogans like “believe Science”. I don’t know if those kinds of slogans ever help, but they’re especially unhelpful here.

> Mainstream medicine has reacted with slogans like “believe Science”. I don’t know if those kinds of slogans ever help, but they’re especially unhelpful here. To me such slogans are a disservice. Science should not be a matter of belief by definition. This way of promoting science is what brings belief-centric discussions to an arena that cannot benefit from beliefs. I remember one presidential debate in the US where the interviewer asked Trump: "Do you believe the science of climate change?" Making such question is an absurdity and reflects the almost religious way these subjects have been considered lately. No scientific field, study or conclusion should be a matter of belief.

notahacker 5y ago
Science is a means of approaching beliefs. Science is not the philosophical position that we should be agnostic about the existence of gravity or magnitude of gravitational forces. Unlike other means of reaching beliefs, science supposes there is little reason to hold a belief that cannot be supported by induction from experimental data, and that a correctly set up experiment can falsify previously held beliefs and require the theory to be updated. A corollary of this is that stuff generally isn't to be believed simply because a very old book and much revered book says so (which is bad news for Aristotle's speculation as well as monotheism, but somewhat better news for Newton's laws because there are practical working applications of them). But when it comes to anthropogenic climate change or vaccine efficacy the evidence very much is there - people can either believe it is probably true or demonstrate their superior understanding of why evidence actually doesn't support the hypothesis (ideally by counter example, but pointing out confounding factors that have been missed is a start). Either approach is consistent with science, though only the latter will further scientific knowledge. An approach to formulating beliefs which isn't consistent with science is the prior that if scientists virtually all agree on the evidence base for something, the contrarian theory is probably right.
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  It seems we think very much the same. Given the historical background, I just think it would be better to use words such as knowledge, understanding, thinking, rationale, instead of belief.
tzs 5y ago
> I remember one presidential debate in the US where the interviewer asked Trump: "Do you believe the science of climate change?" > Making such question is an absurdity and reflects the almost religious way these subjects have been considered lately. What question would you ask to ascertain someone's state of mind on climate change?
- rmbyrro 5y ago
  I'd ask two questions: "What do you know about the science of Climate Change?" "What do you think is your role as a President to apply our knowledge in this area?"

notahacker 5y ago

Science is a means of approaching beliefs. Science is not the philosophical position that we should be agnostic about the existence of gravity or magnitude of gravitational forces. Unlike other means of reaching beliefs, science supposes there is little reason to hold a belief that cannot be supported by induction from experimental data, and that a correctly set up experiment can falsify previously held beliefs and require the theory to be updated. A corollary of this is that stuff generally isn't to be believed simply because a very old book and much revered book says so (which is bad news for Aristotle's speculation as well as monotheism, but somewhat better news for Newton's laws because there are practical working applications of them). But when it comes to anthropogenic climate change or vaccine efficacy the evidence very much is there - people can either believe it is probably true or demonstrate their superior understanding of why evidence actually doesn't support the hypothesis (ideally by counter example, but pointing out confounding factors that have been missed is a start). Either approach is consistent with science, though only the latter will further scientific knowledge. An approach to formulating beliefs which isn't consistent with science is the prior that if scientists virtually all agree on the evidence base for something, the contrarian theory is probably right.

rmbyrro 5y ago
It seems we think very much the same. Given the historical background, I just think it would be better to use words such as knowledge, understanding, thinking, rationale, instead of belief.

tzs 5y ago

> I remember one presidential debate in the US where the interviewer asked Trump: "Do you believe the science of climate change?" > Making such question is an absurdity and reflects the almost religious way these subjects have been considered lately. What question would you ask to ascertain someone's state of mind on climate change?

rmbyrro 5y ago
I'd ask two questions: "What do you know about the science of Climate Change?" "What do you think is your role as a President to apply our knowledge in this area?"