4 ms·

Several things that really truck me with this comment: > consensus science from 50+ years of research and medical practice [...] being questioned This is prec

Several things that really truck me with this comment: > consensus science from 50+ years of research and medical practice [...] being questioned This is precisely what scientists should have been doing! I'm afraid having your work done for you by unqualified amateurs is a kind of punishment for skimping on it for too long. > a background of "Ultimate Fighting Championship color commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter" This is essentially a class-ist argument: Someone who tells dirty jokes on netflix couldn't possibly, by the essence of their being, decide for themselves which scientist to talk to. What's particularly striking is that this comes after the author seemingly accepts the parent's premise that academia is borken. What I'm hearing is "Yeah, we haven't earned your trust, but at least we're not those people". This is not a winning argument, and certainly not a scientific one. > We're in a world were people think that Bill Gates is inserting microchips into people and that Covid is a hoax by the world government and no one has died This too seems heavily influnced by class. When people believe "Bill Gates is inserting microchips" they are factually wrong but tentatively right. They are powerless in politics, while oligarchs, including foreign ones, have outsized influence. Wild conspiracies are how these feelings find expression in those that have no other way of doing so. By taking everything literal ("no, Bill Gates is not literally inserting microchips"), their enemies can avoid dealing with the issues a more charitable interpretation would be getting at. > don't loose faith in science To the extent that science is used as the underwriter of various political projects, I think people are perfectly fine losing faith in it. 5 decades of "belief" in science hasn't done much good, so what's the point? On the other hand, I'm not worried that people will stop using material science... By and large mistrust is very well placed.

mrmikardo 5y ago
> By taking everything literal ("no, Bill Gates is not literally inserting microchips"), their enemies can avoid dealing with the issues a more charitable interpretation would be getting at. This is so on the mark - too often we forget to focus on what someone is _really_ trying to communicate, and take their words at "face value" - which is not communication at all.
helsinkiandrew 5y ago
>> consensus science from 50+ years of research and medical practice >This is precisely what scientists should have been doing! My reference was to the years since we've virtually eliminated the deaths from polio, TB, and measles and other diseases in countries that have used vaccines against them. There have been studies that have shown that some vaccines cause side effects in some people, but none have shown to be comparable to the millions of lives that have been saved from debilitating diseases. > 5 decades of "belief" in science hasn't done much good. Says the person writing a comment on HN through a network of hardware and software unimaginable 50 years ago that was at least partly made possible by scientists and academic researchers making real breakthroughs. My comments were to the poster who thought scientific research was a polished turd because of his experience in one part of academia
blackbear_ 5y ago
> This is precisely what scientists should have been doing! I'm afraid having your work done for you by unqualified amateurs is a kind of punishment for skimping on it for too long. How else do you think scientists reached consensus, exactly? Maybe the problem lies with the unqualified amateurs, who are, well unqualified to do that? Scientific consensus is reached gradually over the course of decades, after a theory stood the test of many many challenges. No scientific theory is absolute and final and challenges are welcome, but they should be scientific, i.e. based on real data and statistically gounded analysis. Yes, it's hard to change consensus, not only in science but in any kind of community. This does not mean everybody in that community is corrupt. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If changing a consensus was easy, it would not be a real consensus. >> a background of "Ultimate Fighting Championship color commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter" > >This is essentially a class-ist argument: Someone who tells dirty jokes on netflix couldn't possibly, by the essence of their being, decide for themselves which scientist to talk to. No it's not. Getting all background knowledge and staying up to date with all pubblications in a given scientific field is very difficult and time-consuming. Expertise does exist, and takes year to build. Somebody who tells dirty jokes on netflix likely does not have the time or energy do to that. Maybe, but quite unlikely. > To the extent that science is used as the underwriter of various political projects, I think people are perfectly fine losing faith in it. What is the alternative? If no policy should be based on science, then what? Tea leaves? Crystal balls? Shamans? Prayers? Goat sacrifices? > 5 decades of "belief" in science hasn't done much good. You really need to elaborate here. Please, please, please. Do not confuse science (the process of discovery) with scientific institutions (the groups of humans with all their defects).
- ironyholder 5y ago
  > What is the alternative? If no policy should be based on science, then what? Tea leaves? Crystal balls? Shamans? Prayers? Goat sacrifices? I'm afraid you're lacking imagination. Also, the irony of these being historical examples rather than made up seems to be lost on you. Humans are strange. On a more serious note, if you were interested in what a modern society looks like that is no longer guided by science, you could study Russia. It seems a cynical blend of religion, nationalism, and imperialism is what it is. I'm not advocating for this, I'm describing what it looks like. >> 5 decades of "belief" in science hasn't done much good. > You really need to elaborate here. I specifically prefaced it with "as underwriter of political projects". Over that time, the #1 influence on policy has been economics, and besides covid all of the most pressing issues today are economic: Stagnation, deindustrialization, inequaliy, and inflation. People are asking, if policy over that period was built on such solid scientific foundation, how come we've ended up here?

mrmikardo 5y ago

> By taking everything literal ("no, Bill Gates is not literally inserting microchips"), their enemies can avoid dealing with the issues a more charitable interpretation would be getting at. This is so on the mark - too often we forget to focus on what someone is _really_ trying to communicate, and take their words at "face value" - which is not communication at all.

helsinkiandrew 5y ago

>> consensus science from 50+ years of research and medical practice >This is precisely what scientists should have been doing! My reference was to the years since we've virtually eliminated the deaths from polio, TB, and measles and other diseases in countries that have used vaccines against them. There have been studies that have shown that some vaccines cause side effects in some people, but none have shown to be comparable to the millions of lives that have been saved from debilitating diseases. > 5 decades of "belief" in science hasn't done much good. Says the person writing a comment on HN through a network of hardware and software unimaginable 50 years ago that was at least partly made possible by scientists and academic researchers making real breakthroughs. My comments were to the poster who thought scientific research was a polished turd because of his experience in one part of academia

blackbear_ 5y ago

> This is precisely what scientists should have been doing! I'm afraid having your work done for you by unqualified amateurs is a kind of punishment for skimping on it for too long. How else do you think scientists reached consensus, exactly? Maybe the problem lies with the unqualified amateurs, who are, well unqualified to do that? Scientific consensus is reached gradually over the course of decades, after a theory stood the test of many many challenges. No scientific theory is absolute and final and challenges are welcome, but they should be scientific, i.e. based on real data and statistically gounded analysis. Yes, it's hard to change consensus, not only in science but in any kind of community. This does not mean everybody in that community is corrupt. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". If changing a consensus was easy, it would not be a real consensus. >> a background of "Ultimate Fighting Championship color commentator, comedian, actor, and former television presenter" > >This is essentially a class-ist argument: Someone who tells dirty jokes on netflix couldn't possibly, by the essence of their being, decide for themselves which scientist to talk to. No it's not. Getting all background knowledge and staying up to date with all pubblications in a given scientific field is very difficult and time-consuming. Expertise does exist, and takes year to build. Somebody who tells dirty jokes on netflix likely does not have the time or energy do to that. Maybe, but quite unlikely. > To the extent that science is used as the underwriter of various political projects, I think people are perfectly fine losing faith in it. What is the alternative? If no policy should be based on science, then what? Tea leaves? Crystal balls? Shamans? Prayers? Goat sacrifices? > 5 decades of "belief" in science hasn't done much good. You really need to elaborate here. Please, please, please. Do not confuse science (the process of discovery) with scientific institutions (the groups of humans with all their defects).

ironyholder 5y ago
> What is the alternative? If no policy should be based on science, then what? Tea leaves? Crystal balls? Shamans? Prayers? Goat sacrifices? I'm afraid you're lacking imagination. Also, the irony of these being historical examples rather than made up seems to be lost on you. Humans are strange. On a more serious note, if you were interested in what a modern society looks like that is no longer guided by science, you could study Russia. It seems a cynical blend of religion, nationalism, and imperialism is what it is. I'm not advocating for this, I'm describing what it looks like. >> 5 decades of "belief" in science hasn't done much good. > You really need to elaborate here. I specifically prefaced it with "as underwriter of political projects". Over that time, the #1 influence on policy has been economics, and besides covid all of the most pressing issues today are economic: Stagnation, deindustrialization, inequaliy, and inflation. People are asking, if policy over that period was built on such solid scientific foundation, how come we've ended up here?