5 ms·

Specific examples can be quibbled about, but I will first say there is still good science occurring everyday. What I am talking about more are people who have d

Specific examples can be quibbled about, but I will first say there is still good science occurring everyday. What I am talking about more are people who have donned the mantle of science. At some point along the line, science went from more of a verb to a proper noun (figuratively). We went from doing the science, to trusting or believing the science. Think about the statement "We believe in science in this house". What does that even really mean? As you considered joining the priesthood, you should know there is a great deal of scholarship that priests engage in. Not just religious scholarship, but the study of the natural world. Many of the minds that pushed humanity forward were priests. Priests believe in science, but the people who put those signs on their lawns tend not to agree. That gets me to my point, science isn't a noun to me. Yet everyday I keep hearing how the science has spoken. Often, when I look at the evidence provided and I deem what was said to be correct. Just as often, I find small sample sizes, hacked p values or a logical flaw with the conclusion. If I start a dialog about my findings in the wrong places, I get told I'm anti-science by people who didn't even read the paper. If forced to provide a good example it would the talk of Covid escaping the Wuhan Institute of Virology. This has become a more main stream opinion in the past month or so, but if you wanted to discuss the possibility of this around this time last year, you would've been called a conspiracy theorist by people who reportedly "believe in science" or even be censored by some of the major platforms in the name of science. That is the opposite of the science I grew up with.

andi999 5y ago
You only do science on a very small area at most. I mean, if you have a certain bacterial infection do you trust the science that the specific antibiotic is likely to be effective, or do you start to 'do' science?
- ummonk 5y ago
  Can't speak for GP, but generally I believe there is a not insignificant chance that the treatment I'm being provided by the doctor is ineffective or even counterproductive. I'll still generally follow the doctor's advice at least after doing a brief literature search to confirm that the doctor's advice is aligned with contemporary best practices. Part of science is acknowledging epistemic uncertainty yet still acting on imperfect information.
  - andi999 5y ago
    I agree. I also read the literature, but (at least in my narrow definition) literature review is not doing science (which is creating new knowledge). Literature review is a precondition of reviewing science though.
thewebcount 5y ago
> Think about the statement "We believe in science in this house". What does that even really mean? I think for most people it means that they believe the process of using science to discover how the world works is better than the other alternatives offered by religion, philosophy, conspiracy theories, etc. They don’t usually think it’s infallible, just better than the alternatives.
Tepix 5y ago
> Priests believe in science, but the people who put those signs on their lawns tend not to agree. I don't see how you can claim with a straight face that priests believe in science. Religion at its core is asking for belief without proof. Science is the opposite.
- Kye 5y ago
  The ways the human brain can find to bridge two things that seem contradictory to someone outside that experience are numerous. It can be as easy as simply not applying scientific processes to something inherently unscientific. Sometimes there's a lot of unchecked confirmation bias in finding proof of faith.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  Thusly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scient... Further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lay_Catholic_scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lay_Catholic_scientist... You are robbing yourself if you don't speak to priests you encounter. They tend to be very well read people, with an interesting perspective on the world if you can be tolerant enough of them.
  - trasz 5y ago
    Anything past 1950? Because the religion wasn’t _always_ hostile to science.
    - mbfg 5y ago
      Believing things without evidence is "hostile" to science.
      - trasz 5y ago
        Really? Is children's belief in Santa Claus hostile to science? What I've meant above is hostility in the literal sense. As in, trying to oppose science with some religious fantasies, like with Intelligent Design, or pretty much anything Catholicism says about human sexuality.
philistine 5y ago
Your issues seem to be rooted in linguistics more than anything. People take poor shortcuts. When they say “we believe in science”, they mean “we respect science”.
P_I_Staker 5y ago
That's not really a good example of science demanding deference, or "blind faith". It's a silly catchphrase that's maybe worded a bit poorly. I've seen a few things quite concerning, specifically with COVID. However, the overall message (that I'm guessing you'd disagree with) to trust the experts, isn't necessarily a call for deference/faith either. The concern is that people will go out looking for validation of their preconceived biases, listen to misinformed parties, possibly with perverse incentives, or political motivations. It's not all about shutting down discussion, as much as keeping the crazies from preventing the public from gaining herd immunity.

andi999 5y ago

You only do science on a very small area at most. I mean, if you have a certain bacterial infection do you trust the science that the specific antibiotic is likely to be effective, or do you start to 'do' science?

ummonk 5y ago
Can't speak for GP, but generally I believe there is a not insignificant chance that the treatment I'm being provided by the doctor is ineffective or even counterproductive. I'll still generally follow the doctor's advice at least after doing a brief literature search to confirm that the doctor's advice is aligned with contemporary best practices. Part of science is acknowledging epistemic uncertainty yet still acting on imperfect information.
- andi999 5y ago
  I agree. I also read the literature, but (at least in my narrow definition) literature review is not doing science (which is creating new knowledge). Literature review is a precondition of reviewing science though.

thewebcount 5y ago

> Think about the statement "We believe in science in this house". What does that even really mean? I think for most people it means that they believe the process of using science to discover how the world works is better than the other alternatives offered by religion, philosophy, conspiracy theories, etc. They don’t usually think it’s infallible, just better than the alternatives.

Tepix 5y ago

> Priests believe in science, but the people who put those signs on their lawns tend not to agree. I don't see how you can claim with a straight face that priests believe in science. Religion at its core is asking for belief without proof. Science is the opposite.

Kye 5y ago
The ways the human brain can find to bridge two things that seem contradictory to someone outside that experience are numerous. It can be as easy as simply not applying scientific processes to something inherently unscientific. Sometimes there's a lot of unchecked confirmation bias in finding proof of faith.
willcipriano 5y ago
Thusly: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_clergy_scient... Further: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lay_Catholic_scientists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lay_Catholic_scientist... You are robbing yourself if you don't speak to priests you encounter. They tend to be very well read people, with an interesting perspective on the world if you can be tolerant enough of them.
- trasz 5y ago
  Anything past 1950? Because the religion wasn’t _always_ hostile to science.
  - mbfg 5y ago
    Believing things without evidence is "hostile" to science.
    - trasz 5y ago
      Really? Is children's belief in Santa Claus hostile to science? What I've meant above is hostility in the literal sense. As in, trying to oppose science with some religious fantasies, like with Intelligent Design, or pretty much anything Catholicism says about human sexuality.

philistine 5y ago

Your issues seem to be rooted in linguistics more than anything. People take poor shortcuts. When they say “we believe in science”, they mean “we respect science”.

P_I_Staker 5y ago

That's not really a good example of science demanding deference, or "blind faith". It's a silly catchphrase that's maybe worded a bit poorly. I've seen a few things quite concerning, specifically with COVID. However, the overall message (that I'm guessing you'd disagree with) to trust the experts, isn't necessarily a call for deference/faith either. The concern is that people will go out looking for validation of their preconceived biases, listen to misinformed parties, possibly with perverse incentives, or political motivations. It's not all about shutting down discussion, as much as keeping the crazies from preventing the public from gaining herd immunity.