4 ms·

I hadn't realized how dogmatic so many people are about "believe science" until the pandemic. It's mildly terrifying. It also spills over into other domains. I

I hadn't realized how dogmatic so many people are about "believe science" until the pandemic. It's mildly terrifying. It also spills over into other domains. If people feel they aren't allowed to be curious or skeptical about the origins of CoV2, how are they going to feel when you tell them manmade global warming is "settled science"? Curiosity is what fuels life. It's not healthy for us or for our discourse to suppress it.

adventured 5y ago
It's of course not: believe science. It's: obey authority. That's what they really mean when they say it. It's philosophically very wide, it represents a much broader spectrum for the person using it than just science. What you're witnessing is a coward's soul laid bare, when you witness someone shut down discussion with bumper sticker regurgitations. When you read the history of any given authoritarian regime of more recent times, there is a large fraction of the general population that tremendously assists the monsters into coming to power, through endless acquiescing. They're the gray moralists, the fence sitters: who am I to have a brain, who am I to have an opinion, little me, who am I to do anything, who am I to hold an opinion separate from such and such important person, I do what I'm told when I'm told without asking questions. They're zombies and they're terrifying to observe in action.
- dghlsakjg 5y ago
  Except it’s not the introspective people that have nuanced opinions driving this. Right now (on the right and the left) it is being driven by people with absolutist opinions based on contempt for authority and facts.
- AYBABTME 5y ago
  I think calling them cowards is wrong. These people probably are just as spread out on the anti-authority front as any other group. They just appeal to different authorities, and in this case the Gentile Society's authorities were saying that a lab leak is unacceptable belief. Also at the time, there was huge reactionary responses to Trumpism, BLM was in full fling, and there wasn't much mental space (and time) left for most people to make clear informed decisions. The trustworthy-looking authorities were saying it's not a leak... and wink-wink if you think it is, you're a Trump supporter. Now that US internal politics is a lot less saturated with crazy stuff, it seems like there's more breathing room for people to sit back and requestion their prior beliefs. And the audience is more receptive, more ready to hear, less occupied with anti-Trumpism.
- jerry1979 5y ago
  With regard to this particular personality axis, I often wonder if companies like TikTok, Facebook, Google, etc have a propensity score (or similar) associated with each user.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Sorry man I'm gonna believe Fauci on how to deal with a virus rather than a random person on the internet. I don't have decades of experience in virology and infectious disease. And guess what? He was right, and the republicans were wrong. do I believe he is always 100% right? Of course not. There was nothing in what he said that seemed illogical though, unlike Trump and his fellow republicans and whackadoodle online conspiracists.
manuelabeledo 5y ago
While I agree that dogmatic belief is not a good outlook for progress, here we should be talking about the alternatives. And the alternative to a supposed "scientific belief" is "wishful thinking".
- jessaustin 5y ago
  You suggest a terrible alternative. Much better would be "believe nothing".
  - manuelabeledo 5y ago
    It is terrible, but it is what we are looking at. It would be naive to believe that every single person out there is equipped with the knowledge and the critical thinking skills to discern between good and bad information, thus it would be vastly preferable that people trust science.
- cdot2 5y ago
  This is called a strawman
- derefr 5y ago
  To be clear, we're talking here about the general category of "things stated by scientists", not the more specific "things stated by scientists about the findings of the scientific process." Many people conflate the both of these as "trusting science" — and that's a problem. You can believe in scientists' claims about what scientific studies say/mean, or about what the scientific consensus on a question is — without believing any random claim a group of scientists makes about any random subject. Specifically, there is strong reason to treat scientists as just like any other group of people, where claims about how the work of science gets done (e.g. whether it's possible for a lab to have an accident resulting in a leak) are concerned.
malkia 5y ago
Yeah, I get it. What I don't get is flat-earthers...
- swayvil 5y ago
  They obviously don't listen to the right priests or scientists. Or subscribe to the right YouTube channels. Maybe they suffer from a deficiency of midichlorions.
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  It’s just the ultimate “fuck school” and “fuck authority” stance, these people don’t actually care whether satellites are really orbiting the earth or if there really is a giant wall of ice preventing us from seeing the edge, they just want you to know how deeply they reject the prevailing narrative.
ipaddr 5y ago
Settled science isn't science it's religion and politics. Many things get super seeded by new theories. Even the number of planets in our solar system has changed a number of times.
- syshum 5y ago
  I am sorry Pluto is a Plant, it is Settled Science... ;)
  - SllX 5y ago
    Biggest plant in the solar system. I wouldn’t trust whoever planted it.
  - svaha1728 5y ago
    Also a Disney character…
javajosh 5y ago
Agree, and take it further. This insight should be the centerpiece of the next generation of suggestion algorithms! The truly science-minded adult should be actively seeking data that disproves their currently held beliefs. This does not mean, however, that you must endure endless, pointless flat earth screeds; ideally you should be able to take individual claims and mark them "settled", a state that can only be invalidated by the output of a new, concrete experiment. I bought the book The Skeptical Environmentalist, for just this reason. I love hearing dissenting opinions from people who aren't a PR firm flunky. Bjørn Lomborg was and is paying a high price for his honest heterodoxy, and the least we can do is listen and not lump him in with the self-serving, lying Koch brother funded PR machine. That effort is driven by the psychological requirement of emotionally manipulating people to your side, not by an intellectually honest questioning of "common sense", and it's a real shame the two get confused.
swayvil 5y ago
Zombie apocalypse 24-7 forever. That's how it is. Not to sound nihilistic or anything.
upsidesinclude 5y ago
I contend that the large majority were not so dogmatic, rather a concentrated effort was made insisting that to do otherwise was shameful. The wild elevation of an institute director to public spokesperson further muddied that water. Anthony Fauci's absolute unwavering denial of any possibility that doesn't suit or credit his policies has cost the US greatly and by extension the world
camjohnson26 5y ago
“Believe science” can be just another way for people to outsource their thinking to someone else. Authoritarianism is attractive to humans on a primal level. Obviously no one person can be an expert in all areas, but it seems like many people have lost the skill of considering alternative viewpoints and practicing humility. If you can’t present your opponent’s argument in a compelling way but instead only engage with the most extreme fringes of an idea, that’s a pretty strong tell.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Because science proved to be correct. We have vaccines and various treatments for it because of trusting science. The ones who wanted ivermectin suppositories and bleach injections were proven wrong in the long run many of them dying unnecessary deaths painfully and on ventilators. I do have some respect for experts who have spent decades studying things over an orange president and infowars.

adventured 5y ago

It's of course not: believe science. It's: obey authority. That's what they really mean when they say it. It's philosophically very wide, it represents a much broader spectrum for the person using it than just science. What you're witnessing is a coward's soul laid bare, when you witness someone shut down discussion with bumper sticker regurgitations. When you read the history of any given authoritarian regime of more recent times, there is a large fraction of the general population that tremendously assists the monsters into coming to power, through endless acquiescing. They're the gray moralists, the fence sitters: who am I to have a brain, who am I to have an opinion, little me, who am I to do anything, who am I to hold an opinion separate from such and such important person, I do what I'm told when I'm told without asking questions. They're zombies and they're terrifying to observe in action.

dghlsakjg 5y ago
Except it’s not the introspective people that have nuanced opinions driving this. Right now (on the right and the left) it is being driven by people with absolutist opinions based on contempt for authority and facts.
AYBABTME 5y ago
I think calling them cowards is wrong. These people probably are just as spread out on the anti-authority front as any other group. They just appeal to different authorities, and in this case the Gentile Society's authorities were saying that a lab leak is unacceptable belief. Also at the time, there was huge reactionary responses to Trumpism, BLM was in full fling, and there wasn't much mental space (and time) left for most people to make clear informed decisions. The trustworthy-looking authorities were saying it's not a leak... and wink-wink if you think it is, you're a Trump supporter. Now that US internal politics is a lot less saturated with crazy stuff, it seems like there's more breathing room for people to sit back and requestion their prior beliefs. And the audience is more receptive, more ready to hear, less occupied with anti-Trumpism.
jerry1979 5y ago
With regard to this particular personality axis, I often wonder if companies like TikTok, Facebook, Google, etc have a propensity score (or similar) associated with each user.
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Sorry man I'm gonna believe Fauci on how to deal with a virus rather than a random person on the internet. I don't have decades of experience in virology and infectious disease. And guess what? He was right, and the republicans were wrong. do I believe he is always 100% right? Of course not. There was nothing in what he said that seemed illogical though, unlike Trump and his fellow republicans and whackadoodle online conspiracists.

manuelabeledo 5y ago

While I agree that dogmatic belief is not a good outlook for progress, here we should be talking about the alternatives. And the alternative to a supposed "scientific belief" is "wishful thinking".

jessaustin 5y ago
You suggest a terrible alternative. Much better would be "believe nothing".
- manuelabeledo 5y ago
  It is terrible, but it is what we are looking at. It would be naive to believe that every single person out there is equipped with the knowledge and the critical thinking skills to discern between good and bad information, thus it would be vastly preferable that people trust science.
cdot2 5y ago
This is called a strawman
derefr 5y ago
To be clear, we're talking here about the general category of "things stated by scientists", not the more specific "things stated by scientists about the findings of the scientific process." Many people conflate the both of these as "trusting science" — and that's a problem. You can believe in scientists' claims about what scientific studies say/mean, or about what the scientific consensus on a question is — without believing any random claim a group of scientists makes about any random subject. Specifically, there is strong reason to treat scientists as just like any other group of people, where claims about how the work of science gets done (e.g. whether it's possible for a lab to have an accident resulting in a leak) are concerned.

malkia 5y ago

Yeah, I get it. What I don't get is flat-earthers...

swayvil 5y ago
They obviously don't listen to the right priests or scientists. Or subscribe to the right YouTube channels. Maybe they suffer from a deficiency of midichlorions.
jazzyjackson 5y ago
It’s just the ultimate “fuck school” and “fuck authority” stance, these people don’t actually care whether satellites are really orbiting the earth or if there really is a giant wall of ice preventing us from seeing the edge, they just want you to know how deeply they reject the prevailing narrative.

ipaddr 5y ago

Settled science isn't science it's religion and politics. Many things get super seeded by new theories. Even the number of planets in our solar system has changed a number of times.

syshum 5y ago
I am sorry Pluto is a Plant, it is Settled Science... ;)
- SllX 5y ago
  Biggest plant in the solar system. I wouldn’t trust whoever planted it.
- svaha1728 5y ago
  Also a Disney character…

javajosh 5y ago

Agree, and take it further. This insight should be the centerpiece of the next generation of suggestion algorithms! The truly science-minded adult should be actively seeking data that disproves their currently held beliefs. This does not mean, however, that you must endure endless, pointless flat earth screeds; ideally you should be able to take individual claims and mark them "settled", a state that can only be invalidated by the output of a new, concrete experiment. I bought the book The Skeptical Environmentalist, for just this reason. I love hearing dissenting opinions from people who aren't a PR firm flunky. Bjørn Lomborg was and is paying a high price for his honest heterodoxy, and the least we can do is listen and not lump him in with the self-serving, lying Koch brother funded PR machine. That effort is driven by the psychological requirement of emotionally manipulating people to your side, not by an intellectually honest questioning of "common sense", and it's a real shame the two get confused.

swayvil 5y ago

Zombie apocalypse 24-7 forever. That's how it is. Not to sound nihilistic or anything.

upsidesinclude 5y ago

I contend that the large majority were not so dogmatic, rather a concentrated effort was made insisting that to do otherwise was shameful. The wild elevation of an institute director to public spokesperson further muddied that water. Anthony Fauci's absolute unwavering denial of any possibility that doesn't suit or credit his policies has cost the US greatly and by extension the world

camjohnson26 5y ago

“Believe science” can be just another way for people to outsource their thinking to someone else. Authoritarianism is attractive to humans on a primal level. Obviously no one person can be an expert in all areas, but it seems like many people have lost the skill of considering alternative viewpoints and practicing humility. If you can’t present your opponent’s argument in a compelling way but instead only engage with the most extreme fringes of an idea, that’s a pretty strong tell.

stjohnswarts 5y ago

Because science proved to be correct. We have vaccines and various treatments for it because of trusting science. The ones who wanted ivermectin suppositories and bleach injections were proven wrong in the long run many of them dying unnecessary deaths painfully and on ventilators. I do have some respect for experts who have spent decades studying things over an orange president and infowars.