4 ms·

There are numerous examples of this, but I think the most glaring would be on issues relating to the COVID pandemic. At the start, the scientific dogma was tha

by ummonk 5y ago

There are numerous examples of this, but I think the most glaring would be on issues relating to the COVID pandemic. At the start, the scientific dogma was that masks don't work, and travel bans don't work, and worrying about COVID was irrational alarmism. Anyone who suggested otherwise was treated as not believing in science (this extended to censorship or at least misinformation banners on major social media platforms). Now, the scientific dogma has flipped, and for example anyone questioning the effectiveness of masks is treated as a science denier.

tshaddox 5y ago
It seems like you’ve skipped a step to “therefore there is a science clergy.” Who are these supposed clergy, and how do they resemble religious clergy? A credentialed scientist saying something they knew was incorrect or later learned to be incorrect seems unrelated to the concept of clergy.
- ummonk 5y ago
  The institutions are the clergy. To a small extent this can include credentialed scientists, peer-reviewed journals, etc., but really it's the government institutions (e.g. WHO, CDC, FDA, Surgeon General) and media institutions (e.g. newspapers, cable news, and social media platforms) that constitute the clergy. The "Science" dogma that the general public is induced to adhere to gets filtered through these institutions.
  - rayiner 5y ago
    This is the part I find scary. Credentialism has given rise to a new clerisy. This is especially evident in fields where “there’s no there there” like social studies.
olliej 5y ago
… what? Science changes course as more data comes in. At first there wasn’t evidence that masks worked, once that had been accrued science was pro-mask. The reason people questioning the effectiveness of masks is called a science denier is because there have been innumerable studies on the effectiveness of masks, and every one that has stood up to scrutiny has come out in favor of masks. Calling scientific consensus that is backed but huge amounts of direct evidence “dogma” is nonsense. Dogma is an absolute opinion on something in the absence of (or indeed denied by) evidence.
- ummonk 5y ago
  > Science changes course as more data comes in. And that's reason to express epistemic uncertainty when basing one's conclusions off limited data. > At first there wasn’t evidence that masks worked, once that had been accrued science was pro-mask. First of all, there was already evidence that masks worked. Second, officials did not tell people that we lacked evidence that masks work - they told people that masks don't work period. > The reason people questioning the effectiveness of masks is called a science denier is because there have been innumerable studies on the effectiveness of masks, and every one that has stood up to scrutiny has come out in favor of masks. Calling scientific consensus that is backed but huge amounts of direct evidence “dogma” is nonsense. The studies show limited effectiveness of masks, particularly with newer variants that have higher exhaled viral loads. People who argue that the benefits of masking are outweighed by the costs are labeled science deniers. This is despite there being some evidence of negative impacts from masking (e.g. on childhood development).
  - simonh 5y ago
    > Second, officials did not tell people that we lacked evidence that masks work - they told people that masks don't work period. Some said we lacked evidence, others said they didn’t work. There was no single voice on this.
- barry-cotter 5y ago
  > At first there wasn’t evidence that masks worked, once that had been accrued science was pro-mask. This is not how that worked. The evidence in terms of tests and trials is inconclusive, either for or against masks, in terms of experimental evidence of effectiveness. Nevertheless East Asia was all fro masks from the beginning and the WHO, CDC, FDA, Surgeon General were against, very vehemently. The western establishment changed their minds based not on experimental evidence but on people going "Are you morons? You're saying masks are literally useless? Not of limited use, actually worthless? Do you understand how airflow and droplets work at all?"
diputsmonro 5y ago
This is not all "science's" fault. This whole thing has been political from the beginning, both in that those in power during the initial outbreak tried to downplay the dangers, and those opposing them tried to overcompensate to distance themselves. Besides, it is perfectly scientific to change your beliefs and guidance based on new evidence, especially when it comes to novel diseases and a generation-defining pandemic.
- ummonk 5y ago
  It's not the fault of "science" in the abstract or even the fault of most scientists (who're sincere and open to debate and disagreement, and generally acknowledge the limits of their epistemic certainty). But there is clearly a faction of media and political institutions which wield "Science (TM)" as a cudgel to stifle public debate / opinions - and they aren't even doing it out of bad faith / political opportunism - they're doing it because they believe it's important to have the general public universally believe in established science "facts".
ShamelessC 5y ago
I don't think this particular issue was viewed through the lens of science for many. It's been a confusing two years and Americans got a lot of mixed messaging from elites in general, and definitely from the FDA. This was seen as institutional failure though, not scientific failure. JTBC, I'm not arguing what it _was_, but how it was perceived. Your portrayal of the recent scientific dogma as being discriminatory of people who don't wear masks does not match mine, however. As far as I know, the current dogma is "get vaccinated and no one really cares if you have a mask on or not, maybe wear one when your grandma comes over though and consider getting a booster if your regional leaders are advising you to". Anyway. The culture war is still firmly between the un/vaccinated, not the vaccinated but unmasked. edit: Maybe try leaving the bay area if you disagree.
simonh 5y ago
People are flawed and when they have insufficient evidence or misleading evidence, or questionable incentives they make mistakes. Science doesn’t stop that happening, it doesn’t stop people being flawed. It just generates the evidence to tell us when it has happened so we can correct. It worked. Job done. > travel bans don't work, and worrying about COVID was irrational alarmism… Clearly you were listening to different medical and scientific advice than I was seeing at the time. The medical establishment was warning about the dangers from very early on. The question about travel bans was mainly about timing, not whether they would be needed or not.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  You can't see the amount of dislikes this video had (Thanks Google), but you really should watch NIH Director's interview as he fumbles on the most basic questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRZE-SJShkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRZE-SJShkE This is not some crackpot interviewer. I work with good hearted scientists everyday. Science is amazing. Science is the foundation for my whole goddamn life. But, our leadership did not hold up to the standard I was expecting them to. And, they crumbled under political influence and their inability to lead with objectivity and truth. They are weak. Almost childish (see it for yourself). It is no surprise they eroded public trust.
  - nitrogen 5y ago
    Can you link to specific timestamps where there were stumbles? I watched the first 8 minutes and it seemed like he was on top of things and answering well.

by ummonk 5y ago

tshaddox 5y ago

It seems like you’ve skipped a step to “therefore there is a science clergy.” Who are these supposed clergy, and how do they resemble religious clergy? A credentialed scientist saying something they knew was incorrect or later learned to be incorrect seems unrelated to the concept of clergy.

ummonk 5y ago
The institutions are the clergy. To a small extent this can include credentialed scientists, peer-reviewed journals, etc., but really it's the government institutions (e.g. WHO, CDC, FDA, Surgeon General) and media institutions (e.g. newspapers, cable news, and social media platforms) that constitute the clergy. The "Science" dogma that the general public is induced to adhere to gets filtered through these institutions.
- rayiner 5y ago
  This is the part I find scary. Credentialism has given rise to a new clerisy. This is especially evident in fields where “there’s no there there” like social studies.

olliej 5y ago

… what? Science changes course as more data comes in. At first there wasn’t evidence that masks worked, once that had been accrued science was pro-mask. The reason people questioning the effectiveness of masks is called a science denier is because there have been innumerable studies on the effectiveness of masks, and every one that has stood up to scrutiny has come out in favor of masks. Calling scientific consensus that is backed but huge amounts of direct evidence “dogma” is nonsense. Dogma is an absolute opinion on something in the absence of (or indeed denied by) evidence.

ummonk 5y ago
> Science changes course as more data comes in. And that's reason to express epistemic uncertainty when basing one's conclusions off limited data. > At first there wasn’t evidence that masks worked, once that had been accrued science was pro-mask. First of all, there was already evidence that masks worked. Second, officials did not tell people that we lacked evidence that masks work - they told people that masks don't work period. > The reason people questioning the effectiveness of masks is called a science denier is because there have been innumerable studies on the effectiveness of masks, and every one that has stood up to scrutiny has come out in favor of masks. Calling scientific consensus that is backed but huge amounts of direct evidence “dogma” is nonsense. The studies show limited effectiveness of masks, particularly with newer variants that have higher exhaled viral loads. People who argue that the benefits of masking are outweighed by the costs are labeled science deniers. This is despite there being some evidence of negative impacts from masking (e.g. on childhood development).
- simonh 5y ago
  > Second, officials did not tell people that we lacked evidence that masks work - they told people that masks don't work period. Some said we lacked evidence, others said they didn’t work. There was no single voice on this.
barry-cotter 5y ago
> At first there wasn’t evidence that masks worked, once that had been accrued science was pro-mask. This is not how that worked. The evidence in terms of tests and trials is inconclusive, either for or against masks, in terms of experimental evidence of effectiveness. Nevertheless East Asia was all fro masks from the beginning and the WHO, CDC, FDA, Surgeon General were against, very vehemently. The western establishment changed their minds based not on experimental evidence but on people going "Are you morons? You're saying masks are literally useless? Not of limited use, actually worthless? Do you understand how airflow and droplets work at all?"

diputsmonro 5y ago

This is not all "science's" fault. This whole thing has been political from the beginning, both in that those in power during the initial outbreak tried to downplay the dangers, and those opposing them tried to overcompensate to distance themselves. Besides, it is perfectly scientific to change your beliefs and guidance based on new evidence, especially when it comes to novel diseases and a generation-defining pandemic.

ummonk 5y ago
It's not the fault of "science" in the abstract or even the fault of most scientists (who're sincere and open to debate and disagreement, and generally acknowledge the limits of their epistemic certainty). But there is clearly a faction of media and political institutions which wield "Science (TM)" as a cudgel to stifle public debate / opinions - and they aren't even doing it out of bad faith / political opportunism - they're doing it because they believe it's important to have the general public universally believe in established science "facts".

ShamelessC 5y ago

I don't think this particular issue was viewed through the lens of science for many. It's been a confusing two years and Americans got a lot of mixed messaging from elites in general, and definitely from the FDA. This was seen as institutional failure though, not scientific failure. JTBC, I'm not arguing what it _was_, but how it was perceived. Your portrayal of the recent scientific dogma as being discriminatory of people who don't wear masks does not match mine, however. As far as I know, the current dogma is "get vaccinated and no one really cares if you have a mask on or not, maybe wear one when your grandma comes over though and consider getting a booster if your regional leaders are advising you to". Anyway. The culture war is still firmly between the un/vaccinated, not the vaccinated but unmasked. edit: Maybe try leaving the bay area if you disagree.

simonh 5y ago

People are flawed and when they have insufficient evidence or misleading evidence, or questionable incentives they make mistakes. Science doesn’t stop that happening, it doesn’t stop people being flawed. It just generates the evidence to tell us when it has happened so we can correct. It worked. Job done. > travel bans don't work, and worrying about COVID was irrational alarmism… Clearly you were listening to different medical and scientific advice than I was seeing at the time. The medical establishment was warning about the dangers from very early on. The question about travel bans was mainly about timing, not whether they would be needed or not.

systemvoltage 5y ago
You can't see the amount of dislikes this video had (Thanks Google), but you really should watch NIH Director's interview as he fumbles on the most basic questions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRZE-SJShkE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRZE-SJShkE This is not some crackpot interviewer. I work with good hearted scientists everyday. Science is amazing. Science is the foundation for my whole goddamn life. But, our leadership did not hold up to the standard I was expecting them to. And, they crumbled under political influence and their inability to lead with objectivity and truth. They are weak. Almost childish (see it for yourself). It is no surprise they eroded public trust.
- nitrogen 5y ago
  Can you link to specific timestamps where there were stumbles? I watched the first 8 minutes and it seemed like he was on top of things and answering well.